HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0260 and id is 1 raw text is: SCHACHT V. OTTER-OSTSEE (THE) [1855]
the deceased, dated the 25th of March, 1851, brought into the registry of the Court,
for the purpose of the present motion, might be delivered out to the Appellant, in
order that she might take probate thereof in common form, in the Prerogative
Court of Canterbury.
There being no opposition, the motion was granted accordingly.
[Mews' Dig. tit. WILL; V. REVOCATION; a. Principles as to, b. Methods of, 2. By
Other Wills, etc. a. VII. PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION, a. Juris-
dietion of Court. See Lemage v. Goodban, 1865, 1 P. and D. 61 ; Berthon v.
Berthon, 1868, 18 L.T. 302; Homerton v. Hewett, 1872, 25 L.T. 855; Silver v.
Silver, 1872, 27 L.T. 766; In the Goods of De la Saussaye, 1873, 3 P. and D.
44: In the Goods of Howden, 1874, 43 L. J. P. and M. 29; Dempsey v. Lawson,
1877, 2 P.D. 106; Hellier v. Hellier, 1884, 9 P.D. 239; see also In re Nawab of
iSurat, 1854, 9 Moo. P.C. 88.]
[150] ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY OF
ENGLAND.
THEODOR HEINRICH GUSTAF SCHACHT,-Appellant; HENRY CHARLES
OTTER and FRANCIS HART DYKE,-Respondents * [Feb. 19 and 23, 1855].
THE OSTSEE.
Restitution of a ship seized as a prize may be attended, according to the cir-
cumstances of the case, with any one of the following consequences [9 Moo.
156, 157]:
First. The claimants may be ordered to pay to the captors their costs and
expenses.
Second. The restitution may be simple restitution, without costs, or expenses,
or damages, to either party, or
Third. The captors may be ordered to pay costs and damages to the claimant.
General principles applicable to condemnation of captors in costs and damages
[9 Moo. P.C. 157].
Costs and damages, when decreed against the captors, are not inflicted as a
punishment on the captors, but as affording compensation to the injured
party [9 Moo. P.C. 163].
In order to exempt captors from costs and damages in case of restitution,
there must be some circumstances connected with the ship or cargo affording
reasonable ground for belief that the ship or cargo might prove a lawful
prize [9 Moo. P.C. 162].
What amounts to such a probable cause as to justify a capture incapable of
definition, and is to be regulated by the peculiar circumstances of each case
[9 Moo. P.C. 162].
It is not necessary to prove vexatious conduct on the part of the captors to
subject them to condemnation in costs and damages [9 Moo. P.C. 163].
Neither will honest mistake, though occasioned by an act of Government, relieve
the captors from liability to compensate a neutral for damage which the
captors by their conduct have caused the neutral to sustain [9 Moo. P.C.
163, 164, 168].
A neutral ship was captured in the Gulf of Finland by one of Her Majesty's
ships of war, for breach of the blockade of Cronstadt, when no such blockade
existed, and sent to England for adjudication as a prize: Held (reversing
the sentence of the Admiralty Court), that the owners of such ship and cargo
were entitled to restitution, with costs and damages, as the seizure was made
without probable or reasonable cause.
Present: The Lord President of the Council (Earl Granville), the Right Hon.
T. Pemberton Leigh, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan, the Right Hon. Sir John
Patteson, and the Right Hon. Sir John Dodson.
255
IX MOORE, 150](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0260&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)